Search

Objective To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of Etanercept biosimilar in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared to the standard drug in real clinical practice. Patients and methods Retrospective observational study. Case series of 138 patients with RA, SpA or PsA treated with at least one dose of Benepali® (n = 79) or Enbrel® (n = 59). Drug retention time was the primary efficacy endpoint compared to the biosimilar and the original. The proportion of patients achieving low disease activity or remission after 52 weeks was used as the secondary outcome. Safety was assessed by means of the adverse effects incidence rate. A cost minimization analysis was performed. Results No differences were observed regarding treatment retention time between drugs (median [95% confidence interval, 95% CI] at 12.0 months [10.2–12.0] for the biosimilar and 12.0 months [12.0–12.0] for the original). Similar improvements, in terms of inflammatory activity and physical function, were obtained after 52 weeks except for patients with SpA and PsA who, in general, experienced improvements of BASDAI and ASDAS with the original compared with the biosimilar. No significant differences were observed in the total number of adverse effects (.43 events/patient-years versus the biosimilar and .53 versus the original). Using the biosimilar in place of the original drug resulted in a net savings of 118,383.55 € (1,747.20 €/patient-years) for the hospital. Conclusion The biosimilar Benepali is as effective and safe as the original and much more cost-effective.

Objective To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of Etanercept biosimilar in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared to the standard drug in real clinical practice. Patients and methods Retrospective observational study. Case series of 138 patients with RA, SpA or PsA treated with at least one dose of Benepali® (n = 79) or Enbrel® (n = 59). Drug retention time was the primary efficacy endpoint compared to the biosimilar and the original. The proportion of patients achieving low disease activity or remission after 52 weeks was used as the secondary outcome. Safety was assessed by means of the adverse effects incidence rate. A cost minimization analysis was performed. Results No differences were observed regarding treatment retention time between drugs (median [95% confidence interval, 95% CI] at 12.0 months [10.2-12.0] for the biosimilar and 12.0 months [12.0-12.0] for the original). Similar improvements, in terms of inflammatory activity and physical function, were obtained after 52 weeks except for patients with SpA and PsA who, in general, experienced improvements of BASDAI and ASDAS with the original compared with the biosimilar. No significant differences were observed in the total number of adverse effects (.43 events/patient-years versus the biosimilar and .53 versus the original). Using the biosimilar in place of the original drug resulted in a net savings of 118,383.55 € (1,747.20 €/patient-years) for the hospital. Conclusion The biosimilar Benepali is as effective and safe as the original and much more cost-effective.

Objective: to evaluate the clinical and economic feasibility of opioid therapy based on the analysis of its cost and effectiveness in patients with chronic pain syndrome in pancreatic cancer.Material and methods. An observational prospective study in parallel groups of patients with chronic pain syndrome associated with pancreatic cancer was carried out. The analysis of cost minimization and cost-effectiveness was applied, as well as pharmacoeconomic modeling, which included the construction of a decision tree in patients receiving morphine sulfate (n=45) and fentanyl TTS (n=45) for pain relief. The sensitivity of the obtained data was assessed using one-way analysis.Results. It was shown that the treatment of chronic pain syndrome in patients with pancreatic cancer with opioid analgesics as part of combined treatment is the least expensive in the morphine sulfate group (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 144.93). Based on the results of modeling, the prognostic factors of influence on the cost of analgesic therapy were determined: the cost of combined analgesic therapy, the cost of treatment of adverse reactions, and the cost-effectiveness ratio.Conclusion. Analgesic therapy of chronic pain syndrome with morphine sulfate in patients with pancreatic cancer is pharmacoeconomically feasible.

Objective: to evaluate the economic impact of the use of various biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) from the group of inhibitors of interleukins (iIL) 12/23 and iIL17 in adult patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with insufficient response to therapy with TNFα inhibitors (TNFα inhibitors).Patients and methods. A Microsoft Excel model has been developed, it allows to calculate the average cost of treatment of 1 patient with PsA who needs a second-line bDMARD from the iIL12/23 or iIL17 group. Only direct medical costs (drug costs) were considered. Cost minimization analysis and budget impact analysis were carried out.Results and discussion. The results of a network meta-analysis demonstrate no statistically significant differences in efficacy and safety between ixekizumab (IXE) and secukinumab (SEC) and superiority SEC over ustekinumab when used in adult patients with active PsA with insufficient response to or intolerance of previous therapy with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or TNFα inhibitors. The analysis of cost minimization showed that the total cost of 1 patient managing for 1 year using IXE is 26% lower than treatment with SEC: on a 2 year horizon, the difference is 27%. Analysis of the impact on the budget revealed that on the horizon of 1 year the simulated distribution will lead to budget savings of 16,796,131 rubles, which will allow additional treatment of 17 patients with IXE, after 2 years the budget savings will amount to 39,289,373 rubles, which will allow to treat additionally 52 patients. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the study results.Conclusion. Thus, in adult patients with PsA requiring second-line bDMARDs, the use of IXE is more effective than the use of SEC and provides reduction in direct medical costs. The use of IXE will not have a significant impact on costs under the State Guarantee Program, but it can increase the availability of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA who have not responded to the previous therapy, without increasing the budget.

Objective: To assess the cost difference of various branded and generic antimalarial drugs available in the Indian market. Background: Malaria is a highly prevalent infectious disease in India. There are innumerable brands of antimalarials in the market with variation in the cost. The cost of treatment is an important aspect of health economics. Cost-related poor patient compliance is a significant problem resulting in incomplete treatment which tends to increase morbidity and mortality. Hence this study was done to assess the cost variation of various preparations of antimalarials (branded and generic) available in India. Materials and Methods: The maximum and minimum price of each antimalarial drug in rupees (INR) was noted by using CIMS July to October 2018 edition, Drug Today July to October 2018, and www.1mg.com. The cost ratio and the percentage of cost variation for individual drugs were calculated and compared. Results: There is a very high variation in the cost of various antimalarials available in India. The highest variation in cost ratio and percentage of cost variation was seen with Chloroquine 500 mg, Mefloquine 250 mg, and Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine 500+25 mg. The lowest cost ratio and percentage of cost variation were seen with Artesunate 120 mg injection, Arteether-Lumefantrine 20 + 120 mg, and Artemether 40 mg. Conclusion: This study reveals the need to further improve the drug price regulatory mechanism concerning antimalarials available in India to improve patient compliance and thus cure rates of malaria. Keywords: Antimalarials, Cost minimization analysis, Cost ratio, Pharmacoeconomics, Percentage of cost variation.

Objective The standard-of-care treatment for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME) includes inhibiting blood vessel proliferation and reducing macular edema or swelling using anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, such as ranibizumab and aflibercept. To conduct a cost-minimization analysis of ranibizumab and aflibercept for treating Saudi patients with visual impairment owing to AMD or DME. Methods Cost minimization was analyzed assuming that ranibizumab and aflibercept have equivalent clinical effectiveness. The third-party payer’s perspective was used in several clinical scenarios. The base-case scenario was DME cases followed monthly using a protocol-specific follow-up. In scenario 1, AMD cases followed a treat-and-extend protocol over 2 years. In scenario 2, AMD cases followed the PRN (pro re nata) regimen over 2 years. In scenario 3, DME cases followed the PRN regimen for 1 year only. Results Aflibercept yielded cost savings of 25.75%, 31.54%, 51.30%, and 9.28% compared with ranibizumab for the base case, scenario 1, scenario 2, and scenario 3, respectively, which supports the premise that aflibercept is more cost saving than ranibizumab. Conclusions From the third-party payer perspective, aflibercept is a cost-containment option that provides substantial savings over ranibizumab for treating Saudi patients with AMD or DME.

Aim. To assess the economic efficacy of a fixed combination tiotropium bromide+olodaterol (T+O) in comparison with other medications, included in the Vital and Essential Drugs List (VEDL), for the maintenance triple therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Materials and Methods. A Markov model was used for the estimation of direct medical costs associated with different medications. Costminimization and budget impact analyses were performed. Results. The drug costs for T+O were the lowest among all compared treatment strategies. The cost savings in favor of T+O were 24.82% [15.86–29.95%]. The application of T+O strategy in 4,101 target patients led to a decrease in the total direct medical costs under the state programs of guarantees of free medical care by 13.13% in 3 years, which will make T+O therapy available to 643 more patients in the first year and 1,624 patients in three years. Conclusion. A fixed combination T+O is a preferred efficient option for maintenance triple treatment for patients with COPD in comparison with other drugs from VEDL, because it is associated with lower total costs and equal efficacy.

In 2020 Colombia may expect to have close to 231,700 patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). Treatment of neovascular ARMD involves the sequential Intra-vitreal injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF therapy) medications. The efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF therapy on a treat-and-extend (TE) dosing scheme are similar when ranibizumab or aflibercept are administered.

Candidiasis is a group of fungal diseases of the skin, mucous membranes and internal organs caused by fungi of the genus Candida. Candidiasis treatment is mainly carried out with antifungal agents for systemic use. Fluconazole preparations, which have proven clinical efficacy and safety, and are also most often used in Ukraine, are presented in the largest number of TN in the pharmaceutical market. The aim of the work is to analyze cost minimization when using fluconazole preparations for pharmacotherapy of three different pharmacotherapy schemes for candidiasis. The analysis of minimizing the costs of fluconazole preparations was carried out using the retail cost of medicines according to the Morion company Pharmexplorer analytical market research system (as of February 2019). In the process of calculating the cost of the course of treatment of patients with candidiasis, fluconazole preparations used for pharmacotherapy of 1) vaginal candidiasis were used; 2) dermatomycosis, atrophic candidiasis of the mucous membranes, oropharyngeal candidiasis; 3) candidiasis of the esophagus, candiduria. The study evaluated only the direct costs of treating patients with candidiasis with fluconazole preparations. Calculation of the cost of pharmacotherapy with fluconazole was carried out taking into account the price per package of drugs, the daily dose of drugs with the determination of the cost of one unit (tablets, capsules), one day of treatment and the course of treatment. Based on the results obtained, using the pharmacoeconomic method of «cost minimization», the least costly drugs were selected for the course of treatment with fluconazole. The calculation results showed that the minimum direct costs for the course of pharmacotherapy of the vaginal candidiasis are 9.88 UAH; the minimum direct costs for the treatment of dermatomycoses, atrophic candidiasis of the mucous membranes, oropharyngeal candidiasis are UAH 26.01, and for the treatment of candidiasis of the esophagus and candiduria – UAH 50.28. In a difficult socio-economic situation in Ukraine, the use of the least expensive representatives of antifungal drugs for systemic use is economically feasible. The results of this study will allow the doctor or pharmacist to choose fluconazole preparations in various doses and dosage forms for patients with low solvency.

Jyoti Aggarwal,1 Jacqueline Lustrino,1 Jennifer Stephens,2 Diana Morgenstern,3 Wing Yu Tang4 1Pharmerit International, Newton, MA, USA; 2Pharmerit International, Bethesda, MD, USA; 3Pfizer, Collegeville, PA, USA; 4Pfizer, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Wing Yu TangPfizer, 235 E. 42nd St, New York, NY 10017, USAEmail wingyu.tang@pfizer.comPurpose: Mechanical ventilation (MV) remains a substantial cost driver in intensive care units (ICU) in the United States (US). Evaluations of standard sedation treatments used to relieve pain and discomfort in this setting have found varying impacts on ICU length of stay. This cost analysis examines both length-of=stay costs and the total cost implications among MV patients receiving common sedative treatments (dexmedetomidine, propofol, or midazolam) in short-term sedation settings (< 24 hours).Methods: A cost-minimization model was conducted from the hospital provider perspective. Clinical outcomes were obtained from published literature and included ICU length of stay, MV duration, prescription of sedatives and pain medication, and the occurrence of adverse events. Outcomes costs were obtained from previously conducted ICU cost studies and Medicare payment fee schedules. All costs were estimated in 2018 US Dollars.Results: The per patient costs associated with dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam were estimated to be $21,115, $27,073, and $27,603, respectively. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a savings of $5958 per patient compared to propofol and a saving of $6487 compared to midazolam. These savings were primarily driven by a reduction in ICU length of stay and the degree of monitoring and management.Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine was associated with reduced costs when compared to propofol or midazolam used for short-term sedation during MV in the ICU, suggesting sedative choice can have a potential impact on overall cost per episode.Keywords: sedation, dexmedetomidine, midazolam, propofol, costs, model

Background: Appendicitis has a high occurrence and is frequently indicated in pediatric abdominal surgery. However, up to 33% of affected children may not present with distinct symptoms, and young children may be a typical or show delayed presentation of symptoms. Appendectomy is one of the most common emergent surgeries to treat appendicitis. After an appendectomy, prophylaxis antibiotics are required to abate infections at the location of surgery and have been shown to reduce postoperative surgical complications significantly. Objective: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the most cost-effective prophylactic antibiotic combination between ceftriaxone-metronidazole and cefotaxime-metronidazole following appendectomy. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using investigations with a similar design and pediatric medical records from 2011 until 2013 from a referral hospital in Bandung City. All direct medical costs related to pediatric appendectomy were collected and discounted. Independent Student’s t-test and chi-square analysis were used. Results: The average total cost of ceftriaxone-metronidazole was USD 393.83/patient and that of cefotaxime-metronidazole was USD 397.89/patient. There were no significant differences in average direct medical costs between treatments with ceftriaxone-metronidazole and cefotaxime-metronidazole (p=0.383). The analysis suggests that both antibiotic combinations have the same effectiveness and cost. For the combinations of ceftriaxone-metronidazole and cefotaxime-metronidazole, approximately USD 1.88 and USD 2.28 were required, respectively, to reduce one day of hospitalization after an appendectomy. Additionally, to increase one percent of cure rate, an amount of USD 19.70 and USD 24.89 was required for ceftriaxone-metronidazole and cefotaxime-metronidazole, respectively. Conclusion: Both therapies investigated were effective as a postoperative antibiotic. However, the combination of ceftriaxone and metronidazole may be more cost-efficient.

What is known and objective Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have become the most widely used treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection. Comparative studies on DAAs regimens approved by the Egyptian Ministry of Health for easy-to-treat genotype 4 (G4) Egyptian patients are still deficient. In this prospective study, we compared the efficacy and cost of two DAA regimens that are used in the treatment of Egyptian chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) G4. The cost-saving regimen is determined. Methods Eligible patients were randomized into 2 groups. Group 1 (Gp 1) received sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir, and group 2 (Gp 2) received ombitasvir, paritaprevir and ritonavir plus ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks. Data were collected and evaluated at baseline and at weeks 4, 8 and 12. Sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12 ) was evaluated. Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed. Results and discussion Eligibility was achieved in 107 patients, Gp1 included 57 patients, and Gp 2 included 50 patients. Two patients dropped out from Gp 2 due to non-compliance. All patients in the two groups showed negative HCV blood levels at the end of treatment. At the 24th week, 3 relapsers (5.2%) were detected in Gp1 and 2 relapsers (4.1%) were detected in Gp 2. SVR12 was 54/57 (94.7%) and 46/48 (95.8%) for Gp 1 and Gp 2, respectively. After the 12th week of treatment, a significant decrease in aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and haemoglobin levels were observed in both groups. Albumin levels declined in Gp 2 only. CMA showed higher cost in Gp 2 than Gp 1, although similar efficacy and safety. What is new and conclusion The two DAA regimens showed high SVR12 and safety in Egyptian HCV G4 patients. Sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir is the cost-saving regimen.

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) can be treated with multiple oral immunosuppressants but cost analyses of these treatments are lacking. We aimed to assess the relative cost difference between various oral medications for CLE using a cost-minimization analysis. Annual direct costs for 10 oral medications used in CLE were calculated including cost of medications and patient monitoring, which include office visits, laboratory and radiological studies, and procedures. Medication costs were taken from the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost calculated by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services or the Average Wholesale Price. Monitoring guidelines were obtained from expert consensus and FDA-approved recommendations. Methotrexate had the lowest total direct cost ($899.31), followed by hydroxychloroquine ($1007.38), mycophenolate mofetil ($1162.12), azathioprine ($1193.71), chloroquine ($2525.01), dapsone ($2750.68), cyclosporine ($2976.32), thalidomide ($75,831.44), and lenalidomide ($316,104.03). For medications used for CLE patients, the medication cost contributes the most to differences between direct costs. Limitations include insufficient patient outcome data to ascertain medication efficacy, exclusion of cost of medication-related adverse events and hospitalizations, and medication cost data not reflecting all payers. Clinicians can use this data to help discern which medication to prescribe CLE patients with financial constraints and reduce healthcare spending.

Purpose: INVICOST, a medico-economic analysis, compared costs of managing treatment-naive patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) receiving intravitreal injections (IVIs) of aflibercept (AFL), dexamethasone implant (DXI) or ranibizumab (RAN) over 1 year. Methods: Healthcare resource use and associated costs were estimated using individual patient data from INVICTUS, a prospective, open-label, monocentric study. Healthcare costs comprised direct medical costs such as drug acquisition and administration, consultations and ophthalmological procedures. Costs were assessed from the French National Health Insurance perspective using published national tariffs expressed in 2019 euros. Results: Of the 60 treated eyes, 48 had no treatment switch; 14 received AFL, 19 received DXI and 15 received RAN. AFL-treated eyes received an average of 6.5 IVIs, DXI-treated patients received 2 IVIs and RAN-treated received 6.8 IVIs. All treated eyes received an initial prescription for adjunctive ocular medications and 349 follow-up procedures were performed including an average of 3.9 optical coherence tomography and 3.2 retinography procedures per eye. Average total direct cost of per-eye treatment was €4516 (€1128–€8257). Average cost was €5782 for eyes treated with AFL, €2779 with DXI and €5536 with RAN. Drug therapy was the cost driver: €4394 (76%) for AFL, €1915 for DXI (69%) and €4268 (77%) for RAN. Conclusion: The difference in total treatment cost is largely explained by the significantly lower frequency of IVI and annual cost of therapy with DXI, compared with AFL and RAN. INVICOST is the first study comparing treatment costs with AFL, DXI and RAN in France in current clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Promacta (eltrombopag; EPAG) and Nplate (romiplostim; ROMI) have not been compared in head-to-head trials for treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia (cITP); however, indirect trea...

Background Pembrolizumab monotherapy and nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab are US FDA-approved first-line (1L) regimens for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic aberrations and with a programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) of ≥ 1%. A published matching-adjusted indirect comparison found the two regimens yield comparable overall and progression-free survival outcomes. Objective The aim of this study was to compare direct medical costs of pembrolizumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab for PD-L1-positive metastatic NSCLC treatment within the first 3 years following treatment initiation from a US payer perspective. Methods A cost-minimization model was built to estimate and compare treatment, disease management, and adverse event costs based on KEYNOTE-024 and -042, and CheckMate 227 Part 1a trial survival and adverse event data. Results 1L pembrolizumab generates $54,343, $75,744, and $76,259 per patient cost savings compared with 1L nivolumab plus ipilimumab for patients with NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 1% within 1, 2, and 3 years of treatment initiation, respectively. Conclusion Pembrolizumab is cost saving as 1L treatment for PD-L1-positive metastatic NSCLC in comparison with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, at least for the short term.

This meta‐analysis was performed to compare the safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomic of bivalirudin versus heparin in high‐risk patients for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Earlier meta‐analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin during PCI demonstrated that bivalirudin caused less bleeding with more stent thrombosis. However, little data were available on the safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in high‐risk patients for PCI. Thus, we performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety in the “high‐risk” patients. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to July 30, 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were all‐cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE); secondary outcomes were major and minor bleeding, followed by a cost‐minimization analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin using a local drug and medical costs reported in China. Subgroup analysis was based on the type of disease of the high‐risk population. Finally, a total of 10 randomized controlled trials involved 42,699 patients were collected. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was employed to appraise the research quality. No significant difference was noted between bivalirudin and heparin regarding all‐cause death and MACE. However, subgroup analysis showed that bivalirudin caused less major bleeding in female (OR:0.65, 95% CI:0.53–0.79), diabetes (OR:0.55, 95%CI:0.42–0.73), and CKD (OR:0.59, 95%CI:0.63–1.65). The scatterers of the included literature were approximately symmetrical, and no research was outside the funnel plot. Additionally, cost‐minimization analysis showed that heparin was likely to represent a cost‐effective option compared with bivalirudin in China, with potential savings of 2129.53 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for one PCI. Overall, the meta‐analysis showed that although bivalirudin appeared to have a lower risk of major bleeding rate, the overall effectiveness and safety between the two groups showed no significant difference in high‐risk patients for PCI. But the results of the cost‐minimization analysis showed that heparin could be a potential cost‐saving drug than bivalirudin in patients for PCI in China., This meta‐analysis showed that although bivalirudin appeared to have a lower risk of major bleeding rate, the overall effectiveness and safety between the two groups showed no significant difference in high‐risk patients for PCI. But the results of the cost‐minimization analysis showed that heparin could be a potential cost‐saving drug than bivalirudin in patients for PCI in China. ​

Oral sotalol, used in adults for sinus rhythm control, is initiated at 80 mg b.i.d. and titrated to a maximum safe dose. The US Food and Drug Administration recommends monitoring the corrected QT interval (QTc ) for at least 3 days, until steady-state exposure of the drug is reached, before patient discharge, which can significantly impact the total cost of treatment. The objectives of this research were to design an accelerated intravenous sotalol loading and maintenance therapy that will reduce the hospital length of stay and to also evaluate the pharmacoeconomic impact in a hospital setting. Pharmacokinetic simulations of sotalol plasma concentrations vs. times profiles were performed to determine the optimal intravenous/oral transition regimen. A cost minimization analysis from the health sector perspective was conducted to assess the cost savings for these proposed accelerated regimens. For a chosen target dose of 120 mg b.i.d., two infusions of 40 mg over 1 hour and 20 mg over 0.5 hour, each followed up by an evaluation of QTc , can be administered followed immediately by the target oral maintenance dose of 120 mg at the end of the second infusion. Consequently, steady-state exposure and, therefore, steady-state QTc are obtained on the first day of therapy, facilitating an earlier hospital discharge. Two and 1-day mean total cost of -$3,123 (95% confidence interval (CI), -$3,640, -$2,607) -$4,820 (95% CI, -$5,352, -$4,288) were observed for this strategy, respectively. We are proposing an intravenous to oral transition strategy for sotalol that has the potential to significantly reduce cost and increase patient convenience.

Background Two large acute Irish University teaching hospitals changed the manner in which they treated human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)2-positive breast cancer patients by implementing the administration of trastuzumab via the subcutaneous (SC) route into their clinical practice. The study objective is to compare the trastuzumab SC and trastuzuamb intravenous (IV) treatment pathways in both hospitals and assess which route is more cost-effective and time saving in relation to active health care professional (HCP) time. Materials and Methods A prospective observational study in the form of cost minimization analysis constituted the study design. Active HCP time for trastuzumab SC- and IV-related tasks were recorded. Staff costs were calculated using fully loaded salary costs. Loss of productivity costs for patients were calculated using the human capital method. Results On average, the total HCP time saved per trastuzumab SC treatment cycle relative to trastuzumab IV treatment cycle was 59.21 minutes. Time savings in favor of trastuzumab SC resulted from quicker drug reconstitution, no IV catheter installation/removal, and less HCP monitoring. Over a full treatment course of 17 cycles, average HCP time saved accumulates to 16.78 hours, with an estimated direct cost saving of €1609.99. Loss of productivity for patients receiving trastuzumab IV (2.15 days) was greater than that of trastuzumab SC (0.60 days) for a full treatment course. Conclusion Trastuzumab SC treatment has proven to be a more cost-effective option than trastuzumab IV treatment that generated greater HCP time savings in both study sites. Healthcare policymakers should consider replacing trastuzumab IV with trastuzumab SC treatment in all eligible patients.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a clinical pathology, accompanied by significant physical and psychological discomfort, and leading to certain economic losses. Women suffer from IBS 2.2 times more often than men.The purpose of the study is to conduct a comparative analysis of recommended drugs for treating patients with IBS by minimizing costs and choosing treatment regimens that allow you to save money with the same efficacy of therapy.Materials and methods. The cost minimization analysis (CMA) of drugs are using data on the cost of drugs for 2018. The course of primary pharmacotherapy was calculated on a combination of antispasmodic and Loperamide, lasting 4 weeks (28 days).Results and its discussion. For the treatment of IBS is important combination of diet, pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. Therefore, the calculation was maden for the treatment of IBS with a predominance of diarrhea of two drugs - antispasmodic and Loperamide.After analyzing the cost of treatment regimens, we can note that the cheapest regimen with INN Mebeverin was the regimen with drugs ASPASMIN and LOPERAMIDE HYDROCHLORIDE. The total cost of the scheme was UAH 287.94.Otilonium bromide is represented by only one TN, and the final price of the treatment regimen with this drug depends on Loperamide. The treatment regimen with LOPERAMIDE HYDROCHLORIDE of Ukrainian production (UAH 320.65 per course) turned out to be cheaper.The cheapest treatment regimen with Drotaverin was the one with two drugs of domestic production - NO-KH-SHA® and LOPERAMIDE HYDROCHLORIDE (141.01 UAH).Conclution. It has been established that the difference in costs for different treatment schemes depends on the price of drugs, and also on whether it is generic or original (brand), imported or domestic. Most domestic drugs are generic, so treatment regimens will be cheaper and will help save money.

Background: Serum level of cholesterol is one of the most vital risk factors for cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Statins are highly effective drugs for reducing serum cholesterol; hence, preventing coronary heart disease (CHD). Rosuvastatin (Crestor) is one of the most potent and widely prescribed statins. Even though generic statins have been approved based on their bioequivalence with brand-name drugs, there remains considerable concern as regards their effectiveness and safety. Most clinicians and patients welcome the generic drug decreased costs; however, it is indispensable for them that effectiveness and safety are not compromised. Thus, the rationale intended for this study is to compare brand rosuvastatin and generic rosuvastatin as regard their economic impact using a cost-minimization analysis. Methods: This cost-minimization model estimates potential impact of rosuvastatin brand versus generic on the healthcare resource utilization for one-year frame from the payer perspective. The model conforms to real practice of management of hyperlipidemia in Egypt and was validated by experts. Results: The drug costs in the rosuvastatin brand group were 3,155,250 EGP while in the generic group were 2,299,030 EGP. The costs of CVD events in the rosuvastatin brand group were 5,863,558 EGP, while in the generic group were 6,810,180 EGP. The total costs in the rosuvastatin brand group were 9,018,808 EGP, while in the generic group were 9,109,210 EGP with a difference of −100,047 EGP. Conclusions: In conclusion, the real cost of generic treatment is more than that of the brand statin when taking into consideration the cardiovascular events.

Background: The low-flow technique could reduce the direct and indirect total cost as well as lower the pollution and glasshouse effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two inhalation anesthetic agents using low-flow techniques on the hemodynamic changes and cost needed. Subjects and Methods: This is an experimental study with posttest-only control group design and a cost minimization analysis on sixty patients, who had underwent surgery and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were grouped into high-flow isoflurane (HIS), low-flow isoflurane (LIS), and low-flow sevoflurane (LSV) groups. The amount of anesthetic agent used was measured before and after the surgery. The cost needed was the main outcome of this research. Results: There was no significant difference in the hemodynamic changes between these three groups (P > 0.05). There was a significant cost difference between the three groups (P = 0.003). There was no significant cost difference between LIS and LSV groups (P = 0.353). There was a significant difference between the cost of high flow and low flow, but there was no significant difference between the cost of low-flow anesthetic agents. Conclusion: HIS resulted in a more expensive compared to the LIS and LSV. However, there was no significant cost difference between the use of low-flow techniques.

Background The emergence and rapid spread of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria related to nosocomial infections is a growing worldwide problem, and polymyxins have become important due to the lack of new antibiotics. Objectives To evaluate the outcomes and pharmacoeconomic impact of using colistin and polymyxin B to treat nosocomial infections. Setting Neurosurgical, cardiovascular, or transplantation intensive care unit (ICU) at the Clinical Hospital of the University of Campinas (São Paulo, Brazil). Method A retrospective cohort study was conduct in patients in the ICU. The renal function was determined daily during treatment by measuring the serum creatinine. A cost minimization analysis was performed to compare the relative costs of treatment with colistin and polymyxin B. Main outcomes measure The outcomes were 30-day mortality and frequency and onset of nephrotoxicity after beginning treatment. Results Fifty-one patients treated with colistin and 51 with polymyxin B were included. 30-day mortality was observed in 25.49% and 33.33% of patients treated with colistin and polymyxin B, respectively; Nephrotoxicity was observed in 43.14% and 54.90% of patients in colistin and polymyxin B groups, respectively; and onset time of nephrotoxicity was 9.86 ± 13.22 days for colistin and 10.68 ± 9.93 days for polymyxin B group. Colistin treatment had a lower cost per patient compared to the cost for polymyxin B treatment (USD $13,389.37 vs. USD $13,639.16, respectively). Conclusion We found no difference between 30-day mortality and nephrotoxicity between groups; however, colistin proved to be the best option from a pharmacoeconomic point of view.

Ravulizumab, engineered from eculizumab, provides sustained C5 inhibition in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) while reducing dosing frequency (every 8 vs 2 weeks, respectively). Treatment choice often carries significant financial implications. This study compared the economic consequences of ravulizumab and eculizumab for treating aHUS.A cost-minimization model compared direct medical costs for ravulizumab and eculizumab in treating aHUS, assuming equivalent efficacy and safety, and took a US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and a 3.0% cost discount rate. The base case modeled adult and pediatric treatment-naïve populations, with characteristics based on clinical trials, and treatment patterns (duration, discontinuation, re-initiation) derived from eculizumab studies with long-term follow-up. Treatment costs (2019 US$) were based on wholesale drug acquisition costs, Centers for MedicareMedicaid fee schedules, and published disease management studies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by adjusting relevant variables.Ravulizumab provided lifetime per-patient cost reductions (discounted) of 32.4% and 35.5% vs eculizumab in adult and pediatric base cases, respectively. Total costs for ravulizumab vs eculizumab were $12,148,748 and $17,979,007, respectively, for adults, and $11,587,832 and $17,959,814, respectively, for children. Pre-discontinuation treatment contributed the largest proportion of total costs for ravulizumab (94.8% and 88.0%) and eculizumab (94.8% and 87.8%) in adults and children, respectively. Across sensitivity analyses, ravulizumab provided cost reductions vs eculizumab.The model included several typical assumptions. Base case patients with more severe stages of chronic kidney disease were assumed not to discontinue treatment, nor to experience an excess mortality risk in either treatment arm, which may not reflect real-world clinical observations. Additionally, rebates and discounts on medication acquisition or administration were not considered.In US patients with aHUS, ravulizumab provided cost reductions of 32.4-35.5% vs eculizumab, with a reduced dosing frequency for ravulizumab. The magnitude of reductions was consistent across sensitivity analyses.

To conduct a comprehensive pharmacoeconomic evaluation of lurasidone for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia under Russian healthcare system conditions and inclusion in EDL (Essential Drugs List) and Medication List for the Certain Categories of Citizens.A retrospective study of lurasidone in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia was performed. Methods of pharmacoeconomic analysis were: cost analysis, budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Use of lurasidone for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia requires 50.04% less costs than the use of paliperidone and 46.69% less costs than the use of sertindole allowing to provide additional therapies to 100.1 and 87.6% of patients, respectively. The cost minimization analysis results are stable when prices fluctuate in the range of ±30%. Considering the current volume of antipsychotic drug supply, replacing 100% of paliperidone with lurasidone from the first year will reduce the cost of antipsychotics for patients who received paliperidone by 39.79 or by 360.81 million rubles over 3 years. Replacing 100% of sertindole with lurasidone from the first year will reduce the cost of antipsychotics for patients who received sertindole by 37.21 or 173.87 million rubles over 3 years. The results of the budget impact analysis are resistant to changes in prices for compared drugs in a wide range.Lurasidone is a more effective drug for treatment of schizophrenia from a pharmacoeconomic point of view in comparison with paliperidone and sertindole. With comparative efficacy with paliperidone and sertindole the use of lurasidone can significantly reduce the burden on budget of state programs of compensation for certain categories of citizens.Комплексная фармакоэкономическая оценка целесообразности применения препарата Луразидон для лечения пациентов с шизофренией в условиях здравоохранения РФ и включения препарата в перечень жизненно необходимых и важнейших лечебных препаратов и перечень лекарственных препаратов для обеспечения отдельных категорий граждан.Было проведено ретроспективное исследование применения препарата Луразидон при лечении больных шизофренией. Использованы следующие методы фармакоэкономического анализа: анализ затрат, анализ «влияния на бюджет», анализ соотношения «затраты—эффективность».Применение Луразидона при лечении пациентов с шизофренией требует на 50,04% меньше затрат, чем использование Палиперидона, и на 46,69% меньше затрат, чем применение Сертиндола. Это позволит обеспечить терапией дополнительно 100,1 и 87,6% пациентов соответственно. Полученные результаты анализа минимизации затрат устойчивы при колебании цен в диапазоне ±30%. При текущем объеме обеспечения антипсихотическими препаратами полная замена препарата Палиперидон на Луразидон с 1-го года позволит снизить затраты на антипсихотики на 39,79%, или на 360,81 млн руб., за 3 года. Замена препарата Сертиндол на Луразидон с 1-го года позволит снизить затраты на 37,21%, или на 173,87 млн руб., за 3 года. Результаты анализа влияния на бюджет устойчивы к изменению цен на сравниваемые препараты в широком диапазоне.Препарат Луразидон с фармакоэкономической точки зрения является более эффективным для лечения шизофрении в сравнении с Палиперидоном и Сертиндолом. При сопоставимой эффективности препарат Луразидон позволяет значительно снизить нагрузку на бюджет государственных программ возмещения для отдельных категорий граждан.

Background Amisulpride was introduced into China in 2010 as a second-generation atypical antipsychotic, while olanzapine has been on the market since 1999 as one of the leading treatments for schizophrenia in China. Since more Chinese patients are gaining access to amisulpride, the study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and costs between amisulpride and olanzapine for schizophrenia treatment in China. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2018. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was utilized to assess the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of amisulpride and olanzapine, followed by a cost-minimization analysis using local drug and medical costs reported in China. Results Twenty RCTs with 2000 patients were included in the systematic review. There were no significant differences between amisulpride and olanzapine on efficacy measures based on scores from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity or Improvement. For safety outcomes, amisulpride was associated with lower fasting blood glucose and less abnormal liver functions as well as significantly lower risks of weight gain, constipation, and somnolence; olanzapine was associated with significantly lower risks of insomnia and lactation/amenorrhea/sexual hormone disorder. No significant differences were found in risks of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), tremor, akathisia, abnormal corrected QT interval. Cost-minimization analysis showed that amisulpride was likely to be a cost-saving alternative in China, with potential savings of 1358 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for a three-month schizophrenia treatment compared with olanzapine. Conclusion As the first meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis comparing the efficacy, safety and cost of amisulpride and olanzapine within a Chinese setting, the study suggests that amisulpride may be an effective, well-tolerated, and cost-saving antipsychotic drug alternative in China.

Modern anticancer therapy due to its intensity and molecular biology orientation allows achieving higher efficiency and theoretically reducing the incidence of complications. However, the increase in efficacy in the modern oncology really exists, but reducing complication frequency, unfortunately, is far from being solved. In many respects the problems of diagnosis, treatment and complications monitoring are associated with the impact on the complex physiological processes occurring in oncological patient. Timely implementation of modern and adequate programs for the prevention and treatment of these complications defines the concept of “supportive therapy”, which provides at least half the effectiveness of antitumor treatment.To date, according to most studies, the most frequent complications of antitumor therapy are hematologic, in particular – anemia. In clinical practice, blood transfusions, recombinant human erythropoietins, hemopoiesis stimulating cofactors are used to correct this type of complications. The need for anemia treatment is determined by its negative impact on quality of life, as well as a negative prognostic impact on the life expectancy of cancer patients, because hypoxia of tumor tissue can be associated with resistance to chemoand radiation therapy, the stimulation of genetic mutations and neoangiogenesis, which make it difficult to control of tumor growth. In numerous studies using multivariate analysis confirmed the association of low hemoglobin levels and/or tumor tissue hypoxia with worsening prognosis and overall survival in many types of tumors. The modern anemia treatment should not be determined only by increased in hemoglobin level, but should be considered as an active prophylaxis for its reducing. Recombinant forms of human erythropoietin and intravenous forms of iron preparations should be the most popular correction methods in everyday practice.The high cost of complex anemia therapy and the social significance of oncological diseases necessitate a pharmaco-economic analysis of registered in Russia erythropoietin preparations and the optimization of existing anemia treatment regimens in cancer patients in order to reduce the expenditures of the health budget. At present, an active import substitution program is underway in the Russian Federation to support the development of the Russian pharmaceutical industry and provide the population with more affordable medicines while maintaining its quality and efficiency. The need to address these issues, and the effective use of the domestic biological analogue epoetin alfa, served as an excuse for performing a comparative clinical and economic analysis. They were selected drugs that differ in pharmacokinetic properties: Eralfon® – analogue of epoetin alfa and Aranesp® – darbepoetin alfa.The treatment model of adults oncological patients with anemia receiving chemotherapy was created, which takes into account various therapies using erythropoietin preparations. The total therapy cost for an oncological patient with anemia is less when using short-acting erythropoietin – epoetin alfa – 131 609 rubles in comparison with the long-acting erythropoietin – darbepoetin alfa – 245 159.2 rubles, the difference was 113 550.2 rubles (–46 %) in favor of the epoetin alfa.According to pharmaco-economic analysis, the treatment of anemia with a Russian-produced drug epoetin alfa (Eralfon®) is preferred in comparison to darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp) in adult cancer patients with nonmyeloid malignancies in the Russian Federation, as it allows increasing the number of treated patients at a cost reduction.

This study was aimed at clinical and economic assessment of feasibility of inclusion glycopyrronium bromide/indacaterol fixed combination in the State Program for providing necessary drugs to patients. Methods. This retrospective study was based on previously published clinical data. Change of economic burden was assessed using budget impact analysis. Cost-efficacy was assessed using cost minimization analysis and lost opportunities analysis. Results. Switching COPD patients from free combination of long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) to glycopyrronium bromide/indacaterol fixed combination has led to 20.44% decrease in the economic burden. The 3-year cost reduction of COPD therapy has reached RUB 2,416 bln. Conclusion. The results demonstrated higher cost-efficacy of glycopyrronium bromide/indacaterol fixed combination compared to the standard therapy of COPD. Inclusion of glycopyrronium bromide/indacaterol combination into the State Program for providing necessary drugs to COPD patients could be rational and ecomonically feasible.

Aim To conduct an economic evaluation comparing Herceptin subcutaneous formulation (Herceptin-SC) with Herceptin intravenous formulation (Herceptin-IV), in the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) early and metastatic breast cancer (EBC-MBC), in the Greek health care setting. Methods A cost-minimization model was developed to compare the total cost of care, from the hospital perspective, for new and existing patients, over 18 cycles therapy course. Total cost of therapy reflects drug acquisition cost, consumables dispensed, hospital overheads, physician and other staff time. Costing data were obtained from official Government sources (in 2014) and resource utilization data from a local validation of an international time and motion study. Results The mean total cost of therapy per patient on Herceptin-IV was estimated at €23,118 compared to €21,870 per patient receiving Herceptin-SC. Drug acquisition costs accounted for €22,311 and €21,738 of total therapy costs for Herceptin-IV and Herceptin-SC, respectively. Following drug acquisition costs, the administration cost was €267 and €64 for Herceptin-IV and Herceptin-SC, respectively. Moreover, the central venous access device cost was €290 and €0 of the total costs of Herceptin IV and Herceptin SC, respectively. Conclusion Whilst drug costs are even, from an economic perspective treatment with Herceptin-SC is associated with a lower economic burden in comparison to Herceptin-IV in the management of patients with HER2+ EBC and MBC. Hence, the substitution of Herceptin-IV with Herceptin-SC can produce valuable savings for the Greek health care system, especially in the current economic environment where resources are scarce.

The recently introduced novel drug combinations for the treatment of COPD are based on long-acting beta-agonists (vilantererol / umeclidinum bromide) and long-acting anticholinergics (olodaterol / tiotropium bromide). In addition to their beneficial clinical effects, these medications have an impact on COPD treatment costs. Minimizing the costs of highly effective medications is necessary to improve the public medical care and drug supply. Objective : to identify the key differences between vilantererol / umeclidinum bromide and olodaterol / tiotropium bromide, and evaluate the ways of minimizing health budget expenditures. Materials and methods . We used the available information from research, clinical trials, and instructions for medical use to conduct a cost analysis that was based on the prices for these medications at different levels of drug supply. As a result, the impact on the healthcare budget was determined under conditions of choosing the least expansive medication and adding vilantererol / umeclidinum bromide in the list of VED. Results . According to the network meta-analysis, when compared with mono-component drugs, vilantererol / umeclidinum bromide showed a more favorable effect on cardiovascular events, as well as a more pronounced effect on the volume of forced exhalation in the first second (FEV1). For the olodaterol / tiotropium bromide combination, no such trend was seen. The costs of 12-month therapy with vilantererol / umeclidinum bromide and with olodaterol / tiotropium bromide were 27,541 and 36,120 rubles, respectively (a difference of 24%). The average direct medical costs were 32,753 and 41,333 rubles per patient per year, respectively. If the vilantererol / umeclidinum bromide combination is added to the VED list and the manufacturer’s maximum selling price is registered at the level of the reference countries, the savings can reach 3-5%. Conclusion . In patients with severe and extremely severe COPD, and also when COPD monotherapy in patients without severe symptoms (FEV1 ≥50%, CAT

Background The combination of midazolam and droperidol has proven superior to droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy in the management of acute agitation in emergency departments (EDs). Objective This is the first economic analysis to evaluate the cost–benefit and cost effectiveness of the midazolam–droperidol combination compared with droperidol or olanzapine for the management of acute agitation in EDs. Methods This analysis used data derived from a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial conducted in two metropolitan Australian EDs between October 2014 and August 2015. The economic evaluation was from the perspective of Australian public hospital EDs. The main outcomes included agitation management time and the agitation-free time gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Results The midazolam–droperidol combination was the least costly regimen (Australian dollars [AU$]46.25 per patient) compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups (AU$92.18 and AU$110.45 per patient, respectively). The main cost driver for all groups was the cost of the labour required during the initial adequate sedation. The combination afforded an additional 10–13 min of mean agitation-free time gained, which can be translated to additional savings of AU$31.24–42.60 per patient compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups. The benefit–cost ratio for the midazolam–droperidol combination was 12.2:1.0, or AU$122,000 in total benefit for every AU$10,000 spent on management of acute agitation. Sensitivity analyses over key variables indicated these results were robust. Conclusions The midazolam–droperidol combination may be a cost-saving and dominant cost-effective regimen for the treatment of acute agitation in EDs as it is more effective and less costly than either droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy.

The study objective is to conduct a pharmacoeconomic analysis of naftidrofuryl effectiveness in patients with ischemic stroke. Materials and methods. The work is based on the results of clinical studies of effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of naftidrofuryl in patients who suffered an ischemic stroke. The study design included data on 1000 patients of 45 and older with first-time acute cerebrovascular disease of ischemic type. Results. Direct medical costs for the chosen patient cohort per the Standard of stroke treatment current at the time of the study were 730 575 189 rubles, in case of naftidrofuryl inclusion they were 476 467 620 rubles. Cost minimization is 254 107 569 rubles. Indirect nonmedical costs associated with temporary incapacity for work for treatment per the Standard of stroke treatment were 124 156 950 rubles, and 64 559 180 rubles for naftidrofuryl use which demonstrates the drug’s economic benefit. Budget impact analysis has shown that the possible savings constitute 7.59 %. Conclusion. Inclusion of naftidrofuryl into treatment of patients with ischemic stroke is justified as it decreases duration of rehabilitation. This leads to a positive economic effect expressed as decreased direct and non-direct medical costs.

Topicality. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading cause of death in the group of infectious diseases and leads to huge economic damage in all countries of the world. To rationalize the choice of medicines and minimize the costs for treatment of CAP without reducing its effectiveness, pharmacoeconomic studies in this area are important.Aim. To minimize the costs of antibiotic therapy for inpatients with CAP without reducing the effectiveness of treatment based on cost minimization analysis and NNT coefficient calculation.Materials and methods. Retrospective analysis of medical records andtreatment sheets of inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia; analysis of the Protocols for treatment of community-acquired pneumoniaaccording to the order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine No. 128 of March 19, 2007; frequency analysis of used antibiotics; ATC/DDD-methodology; cost minimization analysis.Results and discussion. It has been established correspondence of used antibiotics for inpatients with a list of recommended antibiotics in Protocol of treatment of CAP by order of Ministry of Health of Ukraine. It has been found that when using the cheapest generics of antibiotics for the treatment of CAP, a significant saving of money is obtained.Conclusions. It is shown that for the money spent on antibiotic therapy of 1000 inpatients treated by the most expensive generic with INN cefepime, treatment of 3.670 patients can be provided when replacing the cheapest generic; with INN ceftriaxone – 14.740 patients; with INN levofloxacin – 3.290 patients; with INN amoxicillin and clavulanic acid – 2.470 patients; with INN azithromycin – 8.100 patients and with INN amikacin – 3.150 patients.

Comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis of fixed-dose combinations (FDC) vilanterol / fluticasone furoate vs budesonide / formoterol was needed to identify the preferable FDC for asthma management. Study objective : to identify the preferable FDC of inhaled corticosteroid/ longacting beta agonist combinations (ICS/LABA) for the treatment of moderate or severe asthma in Russia. Materials and Methods . Retrospective comparative pharmacoeconomic study; cost-minimization analysis and budget-impact analysis. Results . The present analysis shows that the 12-month direct medical costs for the treatment of asthma using vilanterol / fluticasone furoate and budesonide / formoterol are 29,276 and 40,447 RUR per patient, respectively. The direct costs of treatment with vilanterol / fluticasone furoate are less than those for budesonide / formoterol by 28%. The annual health budget savings that result from replacing budesonide / formoterol by vilanterol / fluticasone furoate are 1,151,512,731 RUR per 100,000 patients. Conclusion . The present results indicate that the vilanterol / fluticasone furoate FDC is preferable (more beneficial) as compared with the budesonide / formoterol FDC.

Intravenous iron and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are used to manage anemia in chronic hemodialysis patients. The interchangeability between intravenous iron sucrose preparations is still debated. We evaluated how cost and effectiveness were impacted when chronic hemodialysis patients were switched from an original iron sucrose product to an iron sucrose similar preparation.A single center sequential observational retrospective study was conducted at a French hospital. The same patients were followed during two 24-week periods (iron sucrose in period P1; and iron sucrose similar in period P2). Anemia-related treatment costs were assessed in P1 and P2 from a hospital perspective. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.Our study included 109 patients (105 analyzed patients and 4 patients with missing data). The mean hemoglobin level was not different between P1 and P2 (p = 0.92). The mean differential cost per patient was + €13.90 (P2 - P1). The factors with the biggest impact on this result were the prices of epoetin alfa and iron sucrose.This cost minimization analysis suggests that for chronic hemodialysis patients, iron sucrose and iron sucrose similar have the same efficacy and that using iron sucrose similar was more expensive in 66.7% of iterations.

BackgroundChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting are concerning adverse events resulting from cancer treatment, and current guidelines recommend the use of neurokinin-1-selective antagonists, such as fosaprepitant, in highly emetogenic schemes. However, the implementation of this strategy may be limited by the cost of treatment. GSTP1 c.313A>G genotype was recently described as a predictor of vomiting related to high-dose cisplatin. We hypothesized that the inclusion of routine GSTP1 c.313A>G screening may be promising in financial terms, in contrast to the wide-spread use of fosaprepitant.MethodsA cost-minimization analysis was planned to compare GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping versus overall fosaprepitant implementation for patients with head and neck cancer under chemoradiation therapy with high-dose cisplatin. A decision analytic tree was designed, and conditional probabilities were calculated under Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations using the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. The observed data included patients under treatment without fosaprepitant, while priors were derived from published studies.ResultsTo introduce screening with real-time polymerase chain reaction, an initial investment of U$ 39,379.97 would be required, with an amortization cost of U$ 7,272.97 per year. The mean cost of standard therapy with fosaprepitant is U$ 243.24 per patient, and although the initial cost of routine genotyping is higher, there is a tendency of progressive minimization at a threshold of 155 patients (Credible interval-CI: 119 to 216), provided more than one sample is incorporated for simultaneous analysis. A resulting reduction of 35.83% (CI: 30.31 to 41.74%) in fosaprepitant expenditures is then expected with the implementation of GSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping.ConclusionGSTP1 c.313A>G genotyping may reduce the use of preventive support for chemotherapy induced nausea and lower the overall cost of treatment. Despite the results of this simulation, randomized, interventional studies are required to control for known and unknown confounders as well as unexpected expenses.

BackgroundTraditionally the gold-standard technique for the treatment of spontaneous abortion has been uterine evacuation by aspiration curettage. However, many studies have proposed medical treatment with misoprostol as an alternative to the conventional surgical treatment. The aim of this study was to apply cost minimization methods to compare the cost and effectiveness of the use of vaginal misoprostol as a medical treatment for first trimester spontaneous abortion with those of evacuation curettage as a surgical treatment.Methodology/principal findingsWe present a longitudinal, prospective and quasi-experimental research study including a total of 547 patients diagnosed with first-trimester spontaneous abortion, in the period from January 2013 to December 2015. Patients were offered medical treatment with 800 mg vaginal misoprostol or evacuation curettage. Patients treated with misoprostol were followed-up at 7 days and a transvaginal ultrasound was performed to confirm the success of the treatment. If it failed, a second dose of 800 mg of vaginal misoprostol was prescribed and a new control ultrasound was performed. In case of failure of medical treatment after the second dose of misoprostol, evacuation curettage was indicated. The effectiveness of each of the treatment options was calculated using a decision tree. The cost minimization study was carried out by weighting each cost according to the effectiveness of each branch of the treatment. Of the 547 patients who participated in the study, 348 (64%) chose medical treatment and 199 (36%) chose surgical treatment. The overall effectiveness of medical treatment was 81% (283/348) and surgical treatment of 100%. The estimated final cost for medical treatment was € 461.92 compared to € 2038.72 for surgical treatment, which represents an estimated average saving per patient of € 1576.8.Conclusions/significanceMedical treatment with misoprostol is a cheaper alternative to surgery: in the Spanish Public Healthcare System, it is five times more inexpensive than curettage. Given its success rates higher than 80%, mild side effects, controllable with additional medication and the high degree of overall satisfaction, it should be prioritized over the evacuation curettage in patients who meet the treatment criteria.

Background: Antibiotic resistance is a major menace to public health and treatment of several infectious diseases, also associated with an economic burden to society. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of antibiotic usage and cost-minimization analysis provides better and low-cost drug selection for the patients.Methods: The study was conducted as a cross-sectional, observational analysis of restricted antibiotics in the prescriptions (n= 191). Cost minimization analysis was conducted for the restricted antibiotics alone. The drug costs of prescribed brands were compared with the least cost brands, and the percentage cost difference was calculated and compared by student paired ‘t’ test. PResults: The average age of the patients was found to be 58.1±18.3 (Mean±SD) years, and most of the restricted antibiotics were prescribed for the treatment of hospital-acquired infections 71.7%. Meropenem was prescribed highly 29.8% followed by imipenem (28.8%) and colistin (12%). The major reason for starting restricted antibiotics was found to be infectious diseases (27.7%). The cost-minimization analysis showed that the total unit cost for caspofungin (₹1,85,000 or $2523.40) was found to be higher followed by meropenem (₹1,29,800) in the prescriptions. The mean cost of actually prescribed restricted antibiotics was found to be ₹68,338±61,332 (Mean±SD). The lowest mean cost of restricted antibiotics was found to be ₹32,223±31,082 (pConclusions: Pharmacoeconomic cost-minimization analysis was a useful tool for clinical pharmacist in the selection of appropriate antibiotics and minimizing the burden of the cost of the drugs, it provides a better outcome in patients while using restricted antibiotics with infectious disease.

Background: Cost minimization analysis is a pharmaco-economic study used to compare two or more health interventions that have been shown to have the same effect, similar or equivalent. With limited health insurance budget from the Indonesian National Social Security System implementation in 2015, the quality control and the drug cost are two important things that need to be focused. The application of pharmaco-economic study results in the selection and use of drugs more effectively and efficiently. Objective: To determine cost minimization analysis of hypnotic drug between a target controlled inhalation anesthesia (TCIA) sevoflurane and a target controlled infusion (TCI) propofol in patients underwent a major oncologic surgery in Sanglah General Hospital. Methods: Sixty ASA physical status I-II patients underwent major oncologic surgery were divided into two groups. Group A was using TCIA sevoflurane and group B using TCI propofol. Bispectral index monitor (BIS index) was used to evaluate the depth of anesthesia. The statistical tests used are the Shapiro-Wilk test, Lavene test, Mann-Whitney U test and unpaired t-test (α = 0.05). The data analysis used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows. Results: In this study, the rate of drug used per unit time in group A was 0.12 ml sevoflurane per minute (± 0.03) and the group B was 7.25 mg propofol per minute (±0.98). Total cost of hypnotic drug in group A was IDR598.43 (IQR 112.47) per minute, in group B was IDR703.27 (IQR 156.73) per minute (p>0.05). Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference from the analysis of the drug cost minimization hypnotic drug in a major oncologic surgery using TCIA sevoflurane and TCI propofol.

Antibiotik dibutuhkan sebagai salah satu terapi dalam menunjang keberhasilan terapi febrile neutropenia . Beragamnya alternatif terapi antibiotik, menjadikan studi farmakoekonomi diperlukan agar didapatkan terapi yang efektif dan efisien. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui antibiotik yang lebih efisien dari segi biaya, yang digunakan dalam terapi febrile neutropenia di salah satu rumah sakit rujukan di kota Bandung selama periode 2011–2013. Penelitian ini merupakan studi observasi analisis, dengan pengambilan data secara retrospektif yang dilakukan pada bulan Februari 2014, melalui data rekam medis pasien rawat inap febrile neutropenia yang mendapatkan terapi antibiotik meropenem atau ceftazidime. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa walaupun secara statistik tidak menunjukkan perbedaan bermakna, rata-rata total biaya terapi menggunakan antibiotik meropenem adalah sebesar Rp11.094.147, sedangkan rata-rata biaya total perawatan kelompok antibiotik ceftazidime sebesar Rp7.082.523. Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat membantu tenaga profesional kesehatan dalam manajemen terapi febrile neutropenia . Kata kunci: Ceftazidime, farmakoekonomi, febrile neutropenia , meropenem Cost Minimization Analysis of the Use of Meropenem and Ceftazidime in Febrile Neutropenia Therapy Use of antibiotics is required in febrile neutropenia therapy. The variety choice on the use of antibiotics has increased the role of pharmacoeconomics study to determine the most effective and efficient antibiotic in a specific area. The purpose of this study was to investigate the lowest cost antibiotic between meropenem and ceftazidime that were used as one of febrile neutropenia treatments at one of referral hospitals in West Java province during 2011–2013. This study was a retrospective, observational and analytical study that was performed on February 2014 by collecting medical record data related to febrile neutropenia inpatient who received meropenem or ceftazidime therapy. The result showed that although it was not statistically significant, the total cost for ceftazidime therapy was IDR7,082,523, which was lower than meropenem therapy (IDR11,094,147). Hopefully, this result can assist the health professionals in the management of febrile neutropenia therapy. Keywords: Ceftazidime, febrile neutropenia, meropenem, pharmacoeconomics

BACKGROUND: Replacement therapy with von Willebrand factor (VWF)/factor VIII (FVIII) concentrates represents an effective approach for patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD) who are unresponsive to desmopressin. However, various concentrates are available, with heterogeneous VWF content and VWF/FVIII ratio.AIM: To compare the costs associated to the replacement therapy with VWF/FVIII concentrates in Italy.METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was performed to compare the pharmaceutical costs per patient of alternatives available for replacement therapy of VWD in the prospective of the Italian National Health Service. For each alternative the analysis calculated the number of vials, and relative costs, required to reach the target levels of VWF:RCo in patients who undergone to major surgery, minor surgery, spontaneous bleeding and prophylaxis.RESULTS: Haemate P® is associated with the lowest FVIII dosage, numbers of vials used and costs in all the clinical situations and at all the dosages considered. With Haemate P® the average costs in major surgery, minor surgery, spontaneous bleeding, and prophylaxis was € 710.94, € 592.45, € 473.96, and € 592.45, respectively. While the costs associated to Fanhdi®, Wilate®, and Wilfactin® was: € 1,309.28, € 1,071.23, € 952.20, and € 1,190.25; € 1,512.45, € 1,344.40, € 1,176.35, and € 1,344.40; € 3,814.09, € 3,269.22, € 3,269.22, and € 3,814.09.CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with Haemate P®, which presents a low FVIII content, allows to reach the target level of VWF:RCo with a lower number of vials and lower costs for the NHS.[Article in Italian]

Background: Peptic ulcer disease significantly lowers quality of life. The proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most potent suppressors of gastric acid secretion. Although similar in terms of efficacy and safety, PPIs have important differences in their costs. Prescription of costly brands adversely affects expenditure on health care system by patients. Therefore, we conducted this cost-minimization study of all available PPIs to help doctors in selecting the cheapest available option. Methods: Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) compares the cost of equally effective therapeutic options for the given condition. The cost of all PPIs brands available was collected from CIMS (July 2015) and Drug Today (July 2015). Cost range, cost ratio and mean cost of the generic drug was calculated. Results: 1122 PPI brands are available in India. Pantoprazole is most commonly available with 494 brands and dexrabeprazole has only 6 brands. All the PPIs are available in oral and injectable formulations except ilaprazole and dexrabeprazole which are available in oral formulations only. Omeprazole 20 mg and 40 mg is the cheapest in both oral and injectable form respectively while ilaprazole 10 mg is the costliest amongst all oral formulations and rabeprazole 40 mg is the costliest in injectable preparations. Highest cost ratio for oral PPIs is for omeprazole 20 mg and lowest is for omeprazole 10 mg. This variation is mostly due to large numbers of brands available for omeprazole. Conclusions: Prescription of costly brands adversely affects patient’s economy and thereby health seeking behaviour. Therefore knowledge of the doctor about drug cost and its application in practice would be an added benefit to the patient and society.

Aim. To study the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and pharmacoeconomic parameters of the original and generic enalaprils in the treatment of the elderly patients with hypertension (HT). Material and Methods. Patients (n=40) 75–90 years with HT were included in the open randomized comparative study. Patients were randomized into two groups. Patients of the group 1 received generic enalapril, patients of the group 2 — the original enalapril consisting of combined therapy. Pharmacokinetic single-dose study of original and generic enalapril were carried out with high-performance liquid chromatography. Pharmacodynamic study was carried out in single-dose administration as well as after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment with original and generic enalapril. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of antihypertensive drugs was carried out on the basis of cost minimization analysis. Results. Original enalapril dose necessary to achieve the target blood pressure (BP) was 10 mg/day as a part of two-component therapy. This for generic enalapril was 20 mg/day consisting of three- or four-component therapy. Both drugs have shown an acceptable safety profile. Pharmacokinetic differences were revealed between original and generic enalapril: area under pharmacokinetic curve 204.14 (202.25–206.05) vs 136.23 (134.17–137.65) ng*h/ml, respectively; time of the drug retention in the blood plasma 5.42 (5.26–5.76) vs 4.88 (4.86–4.94) hours, respectively; p

Objective – to conduct pharmacoeconomic study of leuprolide acetate 45 mg once in 6 months (Eligard) for advanced prostate cancer from the perspective of Russian health care system Materials and methods. Cost minimization analysis (CMA) and budget impact analysis (BIA) were performed. All calculations were made in the MS Excel model. CMA compared leuprolide acetate once in 6 months (Eligard 45 mg) with 7 other prolonged gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs. BIA compared two scenarios: common practice consisting of 4 GnRH analogs; new practice that is leuprolide acetate once in 6 months in 20 % of patients. Costs of drugs, visits to oncologist and injections were calculated both in CMA and BIA. Time horizon was 5 years for CMA and 3 years for BIA. Number of patients treated with GnRH was defined taking into account 5 year survival rate. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed. Results. Leuprolide acetate (Eligard) 45 mg is the most cost-saving option among all compared. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results are sustainable if input parameters are varied in the range ± 25 % from baseline. Budget economy is expected when Eligard 45 mg is used in a part of patients population instead of other prolonged GnRH analogs.

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the costs of management of moderate to severe infections in patients treated with imipenem/cilastatin (IC) and meropenem (MEM). Pharmacoeconomic studies in Saudi Arabia are scarce. The current hospital formulary contains 2 carbapenems: IC and MEM. These antibiotics share a similar spectrum of activity. There are conflicting reviews with regard to the relative cost-effectiveness of these two agents. Methods: A retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 88 patients of IC versus MEM in moderate to severe infections was performed, applying cost-minimization analysis (CMA) methods. In accordance with CMA methods, the assumption of equivalent efficacy was first demonstrated by literature retrieved and appraised. Adult patients (⩾18 years old) diagnosed with moderate to severe infections, including skin and skin structure infections (SSIs), sepsis, intra-abdominal infections (IAIs), respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs) and hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), who were prescribed IC 500 mg every six hours intravenously (2 g per day) or MEM 1 g every eight hours (3 g per day), were included in the study. Only direct costs related to the management of the infections were included, in accordance with a payer perspective. Results: Overall there was no difference in the mean total daily costs between IC (SAR 4784.46, 95% CI 4140.68, 5428.24) and MEM (4390.14, 95% CI 3785.82, 4994.45; p = 0.37). A significantly lower medicine acquisition cost per vial of IC was observed when compared to MEM, however there was a significantly higher cost attached to administration sets used in the IC group than the MEM group. Consultation, nursing and physician costs were not significantly different between the groups. No differences were observed in costs associated with adverse drug events (ADEs). Conclusion: This study has shown that while acquisition costs of IC at a dose of 500 mg q6 h may be lower than for MEM 1 g q8 h, mean total costs per day were not significantly different between IC and MEM, indicating that medicine costs are only a small element of the overall costs of managing moderate to severe infections.